J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Montelongo, a fellow in Senator Hutchison's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 1745.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Comdr. Thomas Vecchiolla, a Navy fellow in Senator Cohen's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the fiscal year 1997 national defense authorization bill.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, the Senate begins consideration of S. 1745, the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. In crafting this important legislation, the Committee on Armed Services placed the national security interests of the United States and the strength of our Armed Forces above other considerations. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 reflects the committee's bipartisan approach to these overarching priorities, and provides a clear basis and direction for U.S. national security policies and programs into the 21st century. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, Senator Nunn, for his outstanding leadership and cooperation in the formulation of this bill. It has been a singular privilege and honor for me to work with Senator Nunn over many years on the Armed Services Committee. I very much regret that this will be his last defense authorization bill, and hope that this bill will serve as a clear legacy to Senator Nunn's enduring contributions to the U.S. Armed Forces and this Nation's security. I would also like to recognize the distinguished contributions to national security of Senator Cohen and Senator Exon. This bill is also the last defense authorization bill for these two outstanding Senators, and I would like to thank them for their dedication to and support of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, the following priorities were our roadmap in formulating this authorization bill: Ensuring national security and the status of the United States as the world's preeminent military power; protecting the readiness of our Armed Forces; enhancing the quality of life of military personnel and their families; ensuring U.S. military superiority by continuing to fund a more robust, progressive modernization program to provide required capabilities for the future; accelerating the development and deployment of missile defense systems; and preserving the shipbuilding and submarine industrial base. I am satisfied that this bill does a good job in fulfilling these priorities. Let me mention some of its highlights: The bill gives our service personnel a well-deserved 3-percent pay raise and 4-percent raise in quarters allowance, effective January 1, 1997. It authorizes the award of the Congressional Medal of Honor to seven African-Americans who served during World War II. The bill contains provisions to enhance our ability to protect our military forces from ballistic missile attacks. It adds essential funding for the modernization of our Armed Forces, including: $40 million for the Marine Corps to develop revolutionary operational concepts and technologies through a warfighting laboratory known as Sea Dragon; a funding program for the Army's Force 21 initiatives to expedite the acquisition and evaluation of new equipment and associated technology for the future force; and $997 million for advance procurement and construction of the next two nuclear attack submarines. The bill also adds $1.2 billion to increase the readiness funding for otherwise unfunded priorities of the service chiefs, and it adds $150 million in funding for the Department of Defense's activities to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Mr. President, I wish I could say that the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 is a major step in the road to recovery for our Armed Forces. It is not. However, this bill does a much better job than the President's budget request in funding our Armed Forces. By offsetting the President's requested decreases in certain key programs, this bill enhances our national security, while still authorizing $7.4 billion less in real defense spending than last year's bill. The main shortcoming in the President's budget request is its wholly inadequate funding for procurement. Our service chiefs, whose primary responsibility is to ensure that our forces are prepared and equipped to defeat any adversary, have repeatedly warned about increasing risks due to the low level of procurement. Our combatant commanders, who rely on adequately prepared and equipped forces to conduct military operations, have said the same. Further, General Shalikashvili, who as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is specifically directed to serve ``as the spokesman for the combatant commanders, especially on the operational requirements of their commands,'' has this to say about procurement: ``We must commit ourselves to a sufficient procurement goal, a goal I judge to be approximately $60 billion annually.'' Yet, despite the advice of his principal military adviser, the President requested only $39 billion for procurement. The Committee on Armed Services added $7.7 billion to this requested amount for procurement. To do any less would be to ignore the very advice we have charged our military leaders to provide. As for the administration's repeated promises to compensate by increasing procurement in future years, the testimony of Admiral Owens, then-Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, is revealing: [The administration said that in 1994] procurement would be at 64 billion. Of course, what really happened was that it went to 48 billion . . . and in 1995, [the administration] said [procurement] was going to 55 billion. But, in fact, what really happened was 46 billion. [The administration] promised [again] it would go up. [But] in 1996, we're . . . down to 39 billion and [the administration is] promising . . . it will go up. As the saying goes, You don't learn much from the second kick of a mule. Or maybe I should say ``donkey.'' This administration's record is so bad, the Congress simply has no reason to believe that if we lower defense spending, the President will make up for it in future years. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may feel that this is a time when we can afford to cut defense spending. In fact, history teaches us the opposite. We have always enjoyed a period of relative calm before the winds of war. With the lethal technologies, emergence of fanatical movements, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that exist today, we do not have the luxury of investing in our military after the fact. We must remain ready and fully capable, both to deter and defeat. Although we cannot--and should not--commit to every conflict where we might have an interest, we must be able to dominate those where we clearly do have vital national security interests. Imagine what this world would be like without United States involvement and leadership in World Wars I and II, the Korean war, and the Persian Gulf war. Without a strong military, our identity as Americans would be a shadow of what it is today. Then, there are those who think that our military capabilities should depend solely on the threat. Their familiar refrain is: Where is the threat? What threat? That is exactly the point. What they see now is the result of a commitment to a strong defense in the past. When they do see a threat, it will be because of a lack of commitment to adequately fund our military today. As General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, aptly says, ``History shows that those who wish to threaten us will do so at our weakest point * * *. They will seek to exploit a perceived lack of U.S. commitment.'' Mr. President, our Armed Forces continue to suffer from a decline in size and spending levels. Fiscal year 1997 will witness the 12th straight decrease in defense funding, which has declined 41 percent since 1985. Some of my colleagues may not know what happened the last time our defense budget was this low. Let me tell them. Repeated budget cuts in the late 1940's, and their deleterious effects on our Armed Forces, served as a virtual invitation for aggression in Korea. By the time we saw this threat, it was too late. As described by former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Creighton Abrams: We paid dearly for unpreparedness during those early days in Korea with our most precious currency--the lives of our young men. The monuments we raise to their heroism and sacrifice are really monuments we owe to ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our indifference to real threats to our security, and . . . for our wishful thinking about how war would not come. In Korea, we suffered nearly 50,000 American dead and had to settle for an embarrassing stalemate. Indeed, that war has yet to officially end, and we are still living with its consequences. Some saw Korea as a military embarrassment. But it was, in fact, a political embarrassment. Our lack of military readiness was a result of our lack of political commitment. I fear we may be laying the seeds for another Korea. Are we willing to suffer another such war? Mr. President, this bill is a sound bill. It provides a foundation to build on to prepare our Nation's Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join the members of the Committee on Armed Services, who voted this bill out of committee 20 to 0, and pass this bill with a strong bipartisan vote. Of special note, the committee vote reflects a consensus that the issue of national missile defense policy should be dealt with only in connection with S. 1635, the Defend America Act. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to refrain from offering amendments relating to national missile defense policy to the defense authorization bill. If Members on either side of the aisle wish to debate national missile defense policy, I suggest we proceed to consideration of S. 1635 as soon as possible following passage of the defense authorization bill. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that any amendments to the defense authorization bill that would increase authorizations for defense spending should be accompanied by offsetting reductions. Finally, Mr. President, because the Armed Services Committee marked up this bill before the approval of this year's budget resolution, we marked to the defense allocation for fiscal year 1997 contained in last year's budget resolution. I want to assure the Senate that the amount authorized for defense will conform to the funding level designated in this year's budget resolution when we complete the conference on this bill. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have been debating this amendment now for over an hour. I just wanted the Senator from North Dakota to consider entering into a time agreement on his amendment at this time.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess until 2:15.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, June 14, is the 221st birthday of the U.S. Army, a military force that has distinguished itself repeatedly throughout the history of this great Nation. Victories in battles from our War for Independence to the Persian Gulf war were successful only because of the stellar soldiers that serve selflessly and bravely in the Army of the United States. I rise today to pay tribute to a man who is a fine soldier and a friend to many of us in this Chamber, Lt. Col. William B. Loper, as he prepares to bring his active duty career to an end. Colonel Loper began his career more than 24 years ago when he pinned on the gold bars of a second lieutenant and the crossed muskets of the infantry. A product of Washington, DC's Georgetown University and the Reserve Officer Training Corps, Bill Loper was well educated, prepared, and trained for his ensuing career as an Army officer. His tours of duty included stints as an adjutant and Chief of Records for the 25th Infantry Division; as a personnel adviser in Pennsylvania; as the Secretary of the General Staff for the 19th Support Command, located in Korea; and ultimately, back to the District of Columbia where he was an assignments officer at the Army Personnel Center, and executive officer in the Army Legislative Liaison Office, where most of us have come to know him. During his tenure in the Legislative Liaison Office, Colonel Loper has worked hard to represent the interests of the Army to Members of Congress, as well as tirelessly working to assist Senators, Representatives, and their staffs, in dealing with defense matters as well as constituent concerns and issues. I do not think any of my colleagues would disagree with my assessment of Colonel Roper, he is an individual who has always been prompt, responsive, and sensitive to the needs and requests of Members of Congress, and he has presented a positive and impressive image of the Army during the course of his duties here. Mr. President, service and dedication to duty have been two hallmarks of Colonel Loper's career. He has served our Nation and the Army well during his years of service, and we are grateful for all his efforts and sacrifices in the defense of the United States. I am sure that everyone who has worked with Colonel Loper would want to join me in wishing him health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the U.S. Army was born 221 years ago today on a village square in Cambridge, MA when a group of colonials mustered together to form an army under the authority of the Continental Congress. As this force went on to confront the Redcoats at Lexington, and to ultimately defeat the British in 1783, it is no exaggeration to say that the birth of the Continental Army resulted in the birth of our Nation. More than 2 centuries later, both the United States and its Army are recognized throughout the world as being unequaled, and I rise today to salute the Army on its birthday. The history of our Nation and our Army are intertwined, and the battle streamers of that service stand not only as testament to the courage, fortitude, and abilities of those who served in the Army, but chronicle the evolution of the United States. The Army was present when the shot heard around the world was fired, and in Yorktown when the British surrendered, not only admitting defeat to the Americans, but validating that we were a free and separate nation. It was Lewis and Clark, two Army officers, who explored the unknown west before that region became territories and states. It was the Army that entered Mexico City, and our victory in the war with Mexico helped to expand our southwestern borders. At Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, and dozens of other blood stained battlefields, it was the soldiers of one American army fighting the soldiers of another American army for the very future of this Nation. In Havana and the Philippines, the American Army fought Spanish imperialism, and at Verdun, Doughboys battled German imperialism. Army Air Corpsmen lost their lives on that Day of Infamy that began World War II, and dogfaced GI's battled the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Imperial Japanese in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, Arnhem, and throughout the Pacific. In the early days of the cold war, American soldiers dug in on the southern tip of Korea, creating the Pusan perimeter and holding the line against the advancing North Koreans, and it was American soldiers who stormed the walls at Inchon to turn the tide of the Korean conflict in favor of the United Nations. In the Ia Drang Valley, and in countless firefights in nameless locations throughout the jungles, mountains, and rice paddies of Vietnam, American soldiers valiantly fought to help the fledgling nation of South Vietnam become a democracy; and in Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait, the American Army deposed tyrants and brought terror-filled regimes of dictators to an end. In its 221 years of history, the U.S. Army has distinguished itself time and time again, and though many things have changed about the Army, the quality and dedication of its soldiers has remained unwavering. The men and women who wear the Army green are individuals who willingly bear many sacrifices so that their countrymen may remain safe, secure, and free. Too few of us ever take the time to think of the soldiers patrolling the demilitarized zone of the Korean Peninsula where there is always the chance that hostilities may break out; or of the soldiers stationed on the Sinai, where they help to ensure the peace between Egypt and Israel remains strong; or of the young paratrooper at Fort Bragg who is ready to deploy to anyplace in the world at a moment's notice. To these soldiers the phrase ``Duty, Honor, Country'' is more than a collection of mere words, it is the creed by which they live their lives, and we are indeed fortunate for their dedication and selflessness. For more than 30 years, it was American soldiers who faced down the Soviets across the Iron Curtain, and when democracy and individual rights ultimately triumphed over communism and collective subjugation, it was thanks in large part to the vigilance of the thousands of soldiers who served on the front lines of the cold war. With the fall of the Communist bloc, the threats to the United States have changed, and the Army is redefining its mission. The Army must now be prepared to respond to regional crises, carry out humanitarian missions, and peacekeeping roles, as well as to be prepared to deal with terrorists and rogue nations. Rest assured, however, that with whatever task that the Army of the United States of America is charged, it will complete its assignment successfully, and it will remain the best trained and best equipped force in the world. Mr. President, if the soldiers of the Continental Army could see their late 20th century brothers and sisters in arms, they would be amazed at the differences between the Minuteman and the soldier of Force XXI. Rifled muskets have given way to selective fire, magazine- fed weapons systems that allow soldiers to see in the dark and fire a multitude of munitions. The horse cavalry has been replaced by the Bradley fighting vehicle, a weapons platform that has the firepower of the divisions of old; and Army helicopters that comprise one of the largest air forces in the world, now transport and support with supplies and firepower the infantry. Combined, all these elements guarantee the success and superiority of the American Army and that wherever it goes, our soldiers will persevere over any foe. I am pleased to have this opportunity to celebrate the history of the U.S. Army, to thank those soldiers who have served in the past and who serve today, and to assure my colleagues that our Army will always stand ready to defend our citizens and our Nation from all who threaten us, just as they have for the past 220 years.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Congressional Records of January 22, March 20, April 15, 19, 25, May 6, 14, 17, and 22, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Trent Lott upon becoming the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication, and, in my opinion, will make one of the finest majority leaders that this country has ever had. I believe as time goes by that people will see the wisdom of this man being elected. We are proud of him. We are proud of the State he comes from, the leadership it has produced. We predict great things to happen during the term of Senator Lott as majority leader.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, while I am talking, I also commend the other Senator from Mississippi, the able Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, for the great service he has rendered to his State and Nation. He has been steadfast and sound in his positions, and he has ably represented his constituents. We are proud of him and congratulate him on his accomplishments throughout his entire career. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in recent years, many in the media, the public, and even some Members of Congress, have come to regard those who seek positions in the public sector with some amount of contempt and mistrust. Most of us in this Chamber know such characterizations are not only unfair and inaccurate, but do much to harm the sanctity and reputation of a body dedicated to debate and providing for the Nation. The large majority of those who become Government officials are honorable individuals, but there are a handful of Senators in particular whose conduct and dedication to service are above reproach, and who stand as living contradictions to those who believe that this is an ineffective and partisan body. These Senators are men and women of principle who are dedicated to the noble cause of working to benefit all the people of the United States. Today, it is with great regret that I mark the departure of a man who sets a standard for service to the Senate and the Nation that is truly unmatched--the majority leader and Senator from Kansas Bob Dole. I doubt it came as a surprise to anyone in Russell, KS, when Bob Dole first ran for elected office in 1951. The bright young war veteran and attorney had already established a well-deserved reputation for courage and hard work when he declared his candidacy for a seat in that State's House of Representatives. It was these two simple attributes that not only help Bob Dole to win that election, but have helped to guide him through life of challenges, hardships, and accomplishments. The heartlands of the Kansan prairies are where Bob Dole learned about being tough and not giving in when in the same situation the average person might simply give up the fight. While this is a region of simple beauty, kind people, and strong values, during the time of Bob Dole's youth it was also a place that was rife with hardships for those who lived there. It was a place where hard work was not a virtue, it was a necessity for survival, especially during the Nation's most severe economic crisis, the Great Depression. In his hometown of Russell, KS, Bob Dole also learned about things such as patriotism and a commitment to serving the Nation. He was taught that these words represented more than mere ideas or ideals, they were part of the responsibilities of citizenship in this great land. During World War II, Bob Dole served his country as an officer in the Army, and when he was ordered to lead an attack on a German-held hill in Italy, Lt. Bob Dole never had any question about his duty. It was this dedication to duty, a commitment to serving the Nation, and pure, unadulterated courage that sent Lieutenant Dole up that hill, and it was those same qualities that not only saved his life after being gravely wounded by hostile fire, but gave his life purpose in the years following his near life-ending injuries. As he lay in a hospital bed, it took a man of fortitude, determination, and courage to face 39 months of surgery, convalescence, and rehabilitation. It took courage, fortitude, and determination for Bob Dole to face the fact that his dream of becoming a doctor and helping others had ended. It took courage, fortitude, and determination for him to make the decision to not make his disabilities a handicap, but to force forward with life and to dedicate himself to serving others through public service rather than medicine. It took a man of fortitude, determination, and courage to learn again how to do all the things that you and I take for granted; to go back to school in order to finish his undergraduate degree and earn a law degree; and, to begin his career. Simply put, it took grit to survive what Bob Dole survived and to essentially start life anew. Since entering politics and public service, Bob Dole has never looked back and he has never faltered in his duties. He has approached each position he has held with enthusiasm and has earned a reputation for thoroughness, fairness, and honesty. These qualities, along with those outlined earlier, endeared him to his fellow Kansans who sent him on to positions of progressively more importance and responsibility. From the Kansas Legislature, he served as Russell County attorney, and then as a U.S. Congressman for four terms before coming to the U.S. Senate in 1968. It is here that I met Bob Dole and immediately took a liking to this serious-minded fellow veteran who had a pragmatic approach to the issues before the Nation, and a fire in him to serve. Over the next 28 years, I became quite fond of Senator Dole as a colleague and a friend. I was pleased to watch him grow into his position as a Senator and to become one of the leading spokesmen for our party not only in this body, but throughout the Nation. His abilities as a public servant did not escape many, including President Gerald Ford, who selected Senator Dole to be his running mate in 1976. The longer Bob Dole served in the Senate, the more prominent and critical his role became in the legislative process. His razor sharp mind gave him an encyclopedic familiarity with legislation and legislative procedure, both which he put to good use as he ascended the ladder of Senate leadership. Furthermore, his years of experience as a Member of Congress gave him an insight into the affairs or the Nation that could be matched by a few with whom he served, and made him a valued advisor to fellow Senators, and to Presidents. In short, Bob Dole was, and continues to be, a man of tremendous abilities and background whose experience allows him to have an impact on the governing of the United States that is unique and nothing short of beneficial. It seems hard to believe that Bob Dole is leaving the Senate. After almost 30 years of prominent and dedicated service, he seems as much a part of this building as the statute of Armed Freedom which sits atop the Capitol and guards the District and the Nation. More important and significant than merely enduring the rigors and battles of the Senate for almost three decades is that during his life and in his tenure in Congress, Bob Dole has made a difference in the history of the United States. Among other things, he has stood tall for a budget that will not saddle future generations with an unfair debt; he has fought hard to give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to keep America free and safe; he remained firm on the need for drawing the line against the crime and criminals that prey on innocent Americans; he did not flinch in working to contain our former Communist enemies; and, he has worked hard to ensure that the United States maintains the most dynamic economy in the world. Time and time again, Bob Dole has been on the right side of the issues, working to create legislation and policy that is beneficial to the citizens of this Nation, and leading this body toward a vision of an America that is safe, wealthy, and full of opportunity as long as there is a United States. It is with no small regret that I say I will miss my colleague, my leader, and most importantly, my friend, Bob Dole. I wish him well and thank him for his service, and for the example he has set for selflessness, patriotism, and humility. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a notice of proposed rulemaking--extension for period for comment has been submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice extends the period for public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to Section 220(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act, published in the Congressional Record dated May 23, 1996. Section 304(b) requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to reconsider House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. Last year, the House acted with wide bipartisan support as it adopted the balanced budget amendment by a vote of 300 to 132. Unfortunately, last year in the Senate, we fell 1 vote short of the 67 votes needed for final passage. Now, we have an opportunity to do the right thing and adopt this proposal. Mr. President, mandating balanced Federal budgets is not a new idea. The first constitutional amendment to balance the budget was proposed in 1936 by Minnesota Representative Harold Knutson. During World War II the attention of the Nation was distracted from efforts to secure annual balanced budgets, although Senator Tydings and Representative Disney introduced several balanced budget amendments during that period. Following World War II, a Senate joint resolution on balanced budgets was introduced by Senators Tydings and Bridges and reported out by the Committee on Appropriations in 1947 but received no further action. During the 1950's, an increasing number of constitutional initiatives for balanced budgets came to be introduced regularly in Congress. It was during that time that I supported legislation such as that offered by Senators Bridges, Curtis, and Harry Byrd to require the submission by the President of an annual balanced budget and to prevent Congress from adjourning without having enacted such a budget. No action was taken on these measures. Yet, since the beginning of the 84th Congress in 1955, an average of four constitutional amendments to require a balanced Federal budget have been proposed during each Congress. There was little substantive action in the 1960's and 1970's on our proposals. But finally, in 1982 while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment which I authored. Our victory was short-lived, however, because the Speaker and the majority leader at that time led the movement to kill it in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. That was our high water mark as we fell one vote short in 1986, four votes short in 1994, and one vote short last year. This is our final opportunity this year to deliver to the American people a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, simply stated, this legislation calls for a constitutional amendment requiring that outlays not exceed receipts during any fiscal year. Also, the Congress would be allowed by a three- fifths vote to adopt a specific level of deficit spending. Further, there is language to allow the Congress to waive the amendment during time of war or imminent military threat. Finally, the amendment requires that any bill to increase taxes be approved by a majority of the whole number of both Houses. This legislation would provide an important step to reduce and ultimately eliminate the Federal deficit. The American people have expressed their strong opinion that we focus our efforts on reducing the deficit. Making a balanced budget amendment part of the Constitution is appropriate action for addressing our Nation's runaway fiscal policy. Over the past half-century, the Federal Government has become jeopardized by an irrational and irresponsible pattern of spending. As a result, this firmly entrenched fiscal policy is a threat to the liberties and opportunities of our present and future citizens. The national debt is over $5.1 trillion. Today, the payment of interest on the debt is the second largest item in the budget. That accounts for the estimate that this year it will take over 40 percent of all personal income tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt. Mr. President, the tax dollars that go to pay interest on the debt are purely to service a voracious Federal appetite for spending. Payment of interest on the debt does not build roads, it does not fund medical research, it does not provide educational opportunities, it does not provide job opportunities, and it does not speak well for the Federal Government. Payment of interest on the debt merely allows the Federal Government to carry a debt which has been growing at an alarming rate. It is deficit spending which has brought us to these crossroads. Congress has balanced the Federal budget only once--I repeat, only once--in the last 36 years and only 8 times in the last 64 years. A balanced budget amendment as part of the Constitution will mandate the Congress to adhere to a responsible fiscal policy. The American businessmen and businesswomen have become incredulous as they witness year in and year out the spending habits of the Congress. Anyone who runs a business clearly understands that they cannot survive by continuing to spend more money than they take in. It is time the Federal Government abides by this simple yet compelling principle. For many years, I have believed, as have many Members of Congress, that the way to reverse this misguided direction of the Federal Government's fiscal policy is by amending the Constitution to mandate, except in extraordinary circumstances, balanced Federal budgets. The Congress should adopt this proposal and send it to the American people for ratification. The balanced budget amendment is a much needed addition to the Constitution and it would establish balanced budgets as a fiscal norm, rather than a fiscal abnormality. Mr. President, the tax burdens which today's deficits will place on future generations of American workers is staggering. Future American workers are our children and our children's children. We are mortgaging the future for generations yet unborn. This is a terrible injustice we are imposing on America's future and it has been appropriately referred to as fiscal child abuse. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, stated, and I quote: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. That is a quote of Mr. Thomas Jefferson. Mr. President, it is time we show the fiscal discipline advocated by Thomas Jefferson and adopt a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the able Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] at this time.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last Thursday the majority leader sought to proceed to the Defend America Act of 1996, but was blocked from doing so by those on the other side of the aisle who do not want the President to sign or be forced to veto this important legislation. These Senators may be able to block passage of the Defend America Act, but they will not be able to cover up the fact they and President Clinton have concluded that the American people should not be defended against ballistic missile attack. Of course, the President has said that he favors ballistic missile defense. But his actions contradict this words. Since elected, President Clinton has cut funding for ballistic missile defense every year. No program has been cut more drastically than the National Missile Defense Program. The Defend America Act seeks to reverse this disturbing trend and to set a measured course toward the deployment of an affordable national missile defense system to protect all Americans. In his recent speech to the Coast Guard Academy, President Clinton asserted that his fiscal year 1997 budget request includes $3 billion for national missile defense. In fact, it includes $2.8 billion for all ballistic missile defense technologies and programs and only $500 million for national missile defense. This amount is insufficient to fulfill even the goals of the President's own 3-plus-3 development program. Ironically, if it were not for continued Republican pressure on the administration, the President would not have developed even this figleaf of a plan. The President and his allies in Congress have spent more time developing excuses for why we should not commit to a national missile defense deployment effort than they have in looking at the dire consequences of not going ahead with such a program. But like all such excuses, these ring hollow. The President and other opponents of national missile defense have asserted that there is no threat to justify a commitment at this time, that we should wait 3 years before we even begin to think about a deployment decision. But in 3 years, North Korea could be on the verge of deploying an intercontinental ballistic missile and other rogue countries could be well along this path. The opponents of national missile defense have also asserted that a commitment at this time could lead to technological obsolescence at the time the system becomes operational. If this argument were extended to other defense programs, we would never build another bomber, fighter, ship, or tank. Versions of this argument have been made time and again, each time opponents of a major defense program spin up the excuse making machine. A national missile defense system developed pursuant to the Defend America Act will be no more outdated than one developed under the Clinton administration's 3-plus-3 plan. In fact, it would likely be more modern and technologically sophisticated, given the robust testing and focused development called for in this legislation. Under the Clinton plan, technology development will languish and many companies will soon pull out of the business altogether. Ironically, the technologies that would be pursued under the Defend America Act are the same ones that the administration is also developing. The main difference is that the Defend America Act would require us to get serious rather than sitting on our hands as we have been doing for the last 3 years. The best way to ensure that we deploy a modern and operationally effective national missile defense system is to get an initial system fielded quickly, then upgrade and build upon this first piece as necessary. Contrary to what the President and his nay-saying supporters assert, readiness to respond to a threat does not come by keeping technology bottled up in a laboratory. Anyone familiar with manufacturing and technology development will confirm that the way to improve the state-of-the-art is to get started, gain operational knowledge, and then build on this experience in an incremental manner. This is the cost-effective, low-risk approach advocated in the Defend America Act. Perhaps the most telling argument made by the opponents of the Defend America Act is the assertion that it would threaten arms control. In fact, the only thing it threatens is the status quo with respect to the ABM Treaty. The Defend America Act does call on the President to seek amendments to the ABM Treaty, which most opponents do not want to see happen. But, since it is awkward for them to be seen as more interested in defending an outdated treaty than the American people, other excuses have to be found. Hence the argument that START II might be jeopardized. But there is no reason why the Defend America Act should in any way jeopardize START II or United States-Russian relations. Russia already has an operational national missile defense system, so obviously they cannot believe that such a deployment is destabilizing. More important, during past negotiations, Russia has demonstrated a clear willingness to amend the ABM Treaty. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is only interested in making the ABM Treaty more restrictive rather than finding a way to loosen its grip on our missile defense programs. The fact that the United States and Russia were on the verge of agreeing to amend the ABM Treaty at the same time as START I was being concluded clearly illustrates that keeping the ABM Treaty is its current form is not a prerequisite for concluding strategic arms control agreements. We should remember that it was the Clinton administration and not the Russian Federation that ended the negotiations to expand our rights to deploy national missile defense. Mr. President, as I have said many times before, the Defend America Act is a balanced and responsible piece of legislation. I am very disappointed that the President is seeking to prevent the Senate from voting on this important bill. If he is opposed to it, it is his right to veto it. But the American people deserve to know the President's position. In my view, procedural maneuvers and misleading arguments will not cloak those who seek to keep America defenseless. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. The able Senator from Virginia can have 25 minutes if he wants to. I am very pleased to hear him speak.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice relates to Federal Service Labor- Management Relations (Regulations under section 220(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act.) Section 304(b) requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, before we recess to honor all veterans as we observe Memorial Day, I would like to bring a situation, which I find extremely egregious, to the attention of my colleagues. Today there are 25 military nominations pending before the Senate. These general and flag officers have been on the Executive Calendar and available for confirmation by the Senate since Thursday May 2, 1996. Now, 3 weeks later, they are still not confirmed because one Senator has placed a hold on these nominations. I do not like anonymous holds for any reason. I can understand a Senator holding a political civilian nominee until a meeting can occur or an agreement can be reached on an issue related to the civilian nominee's duties. In these cases the civilian nominee and the agency would clearly understand who is holding the nomination and the circumstances under which they may reach accommodation. In my view, this type of hold is within the bounds of Senatorial privilege. Traditionally, military nominations have not been the subject of political holds. In the past, we have seen military nominations held for as long as a year. However, in these cases, the hold was not anonymous and the hold was imposed until an investigation of the activities of the nominee could be completed to the Senator's satisfaction. The 25 general and flag officers being held today are hostages, I believe, to a political debate which is totally unrelated to the qualifications or assignments of the nominees. Let me review for my colleagues a few of the nominations which are being held. In the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Richard Myers has been nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as the assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Air Force Lt. Gen. John Jumper has been nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations for the Air Force; Lt. Gen. Ralph Eberhart has been nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as Commander, U.S. Forces, Japan; Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman has been nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy. Mr. President, these are not all of the 35 senior military officers currently under an anonymous hold, but they represent a sample of the effect of this hold. Why would a Senator deny the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff his key assistant, the person who travels with the Secretary of State representing the Chairman in critical foreign policy discussions? Why would a Senator hold an officer selected for assignment as the plans and operations officer for the entire U.S. Air Force. We all understand the global commitments of the Air Force. Why would a Senator deny the chief of staff of the Air Force the ability to fill this very critical billet? Why would a Senator deny our U.S. Forces in Japan a commander or the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy their Superintendent? Is there any political agenda so worthy as to merit such action? I think not. Mr. President, I abhor this tactic of holding military nominations hostage. I assure my colleagues this is not the way to force me or Senator Nunn to capitulate on a political issue. I strongly believe also that the Department of Defense should not make concessions while military nominees are held. We cannot allow military nominations to become bargaining chips in political disagreements, for local defense contracts or approval of military construction projects. Military personnel are selected for promotion and nominated by the President based on their performance and potential for greater service. These are merit based actions not political decisions. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I will do everything possible to keep politics out of the military promotion process. I urge the Senator who has placed a hold on the military nominations to release them and permit the Senate to confirm these key military leaders so they can continue to serve their country and perform the business of national security.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am proud to be a principal cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996. This legislation will fill a glaring void in United States national security policy by requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003 that is capable of defending the United States against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack. Mr. President, ironically, most Americans already believe that we have such a system in place. This assumption is understandable since, under the Constitution, the President's first responsibility is to provide for the defense of the American homeland. Unfortunately, the current President has decided that this obligation is one that can be indefinitely delayed. In my view, the time has come to end America's complete vulnerability to ballistic missile blackmail and attack. The President and his supporters in Congress have argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system. This is simply not true. The political and military situation in the former Soviet Union has deteriorated, leading to greater uncertainty over the control and security of Russian strategic nuclear forces. China's recent use of ballistic missiles near Taiwan, and veiled threats against the United States, clearly demonstrates how such missiles can be used as tools of intimidation and blackmail. North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching the United States once deployed. Other hostile and unpredictable countries, such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, have made clear their desire to acquire missiles capable of reaching the United States. The technology and knowledge to produce missiles and weapons of mass destruction is available on the open market. It is also important to bear in mind that a national missile defense system can actually discourage countries from acquiring long-range missiles in the first place. In this sense, we should view national missile defense as a powerful non-proliferation tool, not just something to be considered some time in the future as a response to newly emerging threats. The policy advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996 is virtually identical to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill, which was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. Like the legislation vetoed by the President, the Defend America Act of 1996 would require that the entire United States be protected against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized attack by the year 2003. It differs from the vetoed legislation in that it provides the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in determining the precise architecture for the system. The Defend America Act of 1996 urges the President to begin negotiations to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for deployment of an effective system. But it also recommends that, if these negotiations fail to produce acceptable amendments within 1 year, Congress and the President should consider withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty. Nothing in this legislation, however, requires or advocates abrogation or violation of the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, it is important to point out that in 1991, Congress approved, and the President signed, the Missile Defense Act of 1991, which established policies similar to those advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996. Like the Defend America Act, the Missile Defense Act of 1991 called for deployment of an initial national missile defense system by a date certain and provided for a follow-on system. Both also urged the President to begin negotiations to amend the ABM Treaty. Although there are clear differences between the Defend America Act of 1996 and the Missile Defense Act of 1991, I believe that these similarities are worth pointing out. A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now saying that they oppose a policy to deploy by a date certain. But this is what we did in the 1991 Act. Several of these same Senators now also seem to be opposed to any amendments to the ABM Treaty, even though the 1991 Act clearly urged to the President to negotiate such amendments. Mr. President, it has been asserted that a commitment to deploy a national missile defense system might jeopardize the START II Treaty. But the Missile Defense Act of 1991 was signed into law at the same time that negotiations on the START I Treaty were being concluded. Indeed, at the same time that START I was being finalized, Russian President Yeltsin proposed that the United States and Russia cooperate on a ``Global Defense System''. I find it hard to believe that anything in the Defend America Act would jeopardize START II any more than the Missile Defense Act of 1991 jeopardized START I. Those who make this assertion are simply giving Russian opponents of START II another excuse to oppose the agreement. Mr. President, opponents of the Defend America Act have also argued that it would lock us into a technological dead end; that in 3 years we may have better technology available to do the job. The fact is that there are no technologies in development other than those identified in the Defend America Act. The Administration's so-called ``three-plus- three'' national missile defense plan relies on the exact same technologies that would be employed if the Defend America Act were passed. The only difference is that under the Defend America Act, development of those technologies would be accelerated. Once again the Administration and its congressional allies are just making excuses for not getting on with the business of defending America. Mr. President, the last issue I want to deal with is the question of cost. We have heard some rather careless assertions made about the cost of the Defend America Act. It is true that if the Secretary of Defense decided to deploy a constellation of space-based lasers, a constellation of ``Brilliant Pebbles'' space-based interceptors, a constellation of ``Brilliant Eyes'' space-based sensors, and 300 or 400 ground-based interceptors at multiple sites the cost could be as high as $60 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. But Mr. President, under the Defend America Act, the Secretary of Defense could also select a more modest deployment that could be achieved for $5 to $10 billion. The Air Force and the Army both have developed such low-cost proposals. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a system consisting of 100 ground-based interceptors, four new ground-based radars and a constellation of Brilliant Eyes sensors would cost approximately $14 billion over the next 6 years. These are clearly affordable costs when compared with the costs associated with other major items in the defense budget. An entire national missile defense system could be acquired for less than an additional 20 B-2 bombers. The cost would be about the same for the Corps SAM theater missile defense system, which the administration strongly supports even though we already have four core theater missile defense systems in development to protect forward deployed forces. In my view, those who assert that we cannot afford an NMD system have simply gotten their priorities wrong. With an annual defense budget of $260 billion to $270 billion, it is irresponsible to argue that we should not spend $1 billion per year on the defense of the American homeland. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that the Defend America Act of 1996 is balanced and timely legislation. I understand that opponents of this legislation do not want to allow the Senate to vote on this issue. But the President will not be able to hide from it. If the President's allies in the Senate stand in the way of a vote on the Defend America Act to protect him from having to sign or veto this legislation, the American people will nonetheless know who stands for their defense and who does not. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if there is nothing else to come before the Senate tonight, I think we are ready to adjourn.

Mr. THURMOND. I will delegate that to the able Senator from Virginia.